GOVERNANCE AND GOVERNANCE INDICATOR

Governance in General - The word “governance” came from the Latin verb “gubernare,” or
more originally from the Greek word “kubernaein,” which means “to steer.” Basing on its
etymology, governance refers to the manner of steering or governing, or of directing and
controlling, a group of people or a state.

Definition of Governance - Governance is commonly defined as the exercise of power or

authority by political leaders for the well-being of their country’s citizens or subjects. It is the
complex process whereby some sectors of the society wield power and enact and promulgate
public policies which directly affect human and institutional interactions, and economic and
social development. The power exercised by the participating sectors of the society is always
for the common good, as it is essential for demanding respect and cooperation from the
citizens and the state. As such, a great deal about governance is the proper and effective
utilization of resources.

Importance of Studying Governance - From the information learned in the discussion of

governance, the people, most especially the citizens, will be aware of the need for good
governance. Consequently, such awareness should move them to action. For their continued
empowerment and sustainable development, they have to know how to fight for their rights by
knowing what to expect from Philippine governance. Thus, what will follow is an exposition of
the basic concepts of governance, the ideal type of governance, and the status of the
Philippines vis-à-vis the indicators of good governance.

World Governance Indicators (WGI)

World Governance Indicators (WGI) is a research dataset summarizing the views on the
quality of governance provided by a large number of enterprises, citizens and expert survey
respondents in industrial and developing countries. These data are gathered from a number of
survey institutes, think tanks, non-government organizations, international organizations and
private sector firms. The WGI is a research project of the World Bank (WB) since 1996 and
covers 211 countries.

The WGI is an aggregate of six dimensions:

1. Voice and Accountability: reflects perceptions of the extent to which a country’s

citizens are able to participate in selecting their government, as well as freedom of
expression, freedom of association, and a free media
2. Government Effectiveness: reflects perceptions of the quality of public services, the
quality of the civil service and the degree of its independence from political pressures,
the quality of policy formulation and implementation, and the credibility of the
government’s commitment to such policies
 3. Control of Corruption: reflects perceptions of the extent to which public power is
exercised for private gain, including both petty and grand forms of corruption, as well as
“capture” of the state by elites and private interests
4. Rule of Law: reflects perceptions of the extent to which agents have confidence in and
abide by the rules of society, and in particular the quality of contract enforcement,
property rights, the police, and the courts, as well as the likelihood of crime and
violence
5. Regulatory Quality: reflects perceptions of the ability of the government to formulate
and implement sound policies and regulations that permit and promote private sector
development
6. Political Stability and Absence of Violence/ Terrorism: measures perceptions of the
likelihood of political instability and/or politically-motivated violence, including
terrorism

Worldwide Governance Indicators 2018

May 7, 2019 admin

Philippine Performance for the Past Five Years

Indicator 2012

Voice and Accountability 47.89

Government Effectiveness 58.77

Control of Corruption 35.07

Rule of Law 38.97

Regulatory Quality 51.66

  In general, the country has improved its internal efficiency and systems, but strategies
must be strengthened to improve public perception on rule of law and quality of governance.
These can be addressed by fully implementing the Ease of Doing Business and Efficient
Government Service Delivery Act of 2018 (RA 11032), the Philippine Identification System (RA
11055) and the Build, Build, Build program.

The latest report reflects the Philippines’ standings on each dimension as follows:

 Voice and Accountability. The country’s rank decreased from 51.2 pctl to 48.8 pctl. This
may be attributed to the seemingly fragile relationship between the government and
media especially with the portrayal of media on the quality of governance by the
current administration.
 Government Effectiveness. The indicator stagnated at 51.92 pctl. The same issues in
2016 beset the government in 2017 such as delays in infrastructure and bureaucratic
government processes.
 Control of Corruption. This indicator has returned to its 2015 levels at 39.9 pctl, which
indicates benefits are being reaped in terms of anti-corruption initiatives resulting from
the implementation of the Office of the Ombudsman’s 7-Year Roadmap.
 Rule of Law. The country registered lower in this sub-indicator for 2017 (37.0 pctl)
compared to 2016 (39.4 pctl). This could be attributed to questions on the validity and
integrity of police operations regarding the anti-illegal drug campaign.
 Regulatory Quality. This indicator has maintained its upward trajectory since 2013
which could be a result of LGUs’ push for policies related to ease of doing business in
their respective localities as well as efforts on streamlining as directed by the President.

 Philippine vs. ASEAN Performance for the Current Year

Voice and Government Control of Rule of Regulatory

Country
Accountability Effectiveness Corruption Law Quality

Brunei 22.66 84.13 75.00 74.52 75.48

Cambodia 15.76 25.48 8.65 13.46 32.21

Indonesia 50.74 54.81 48.08 40.87 51.92

 Voice and Government Control of Rule of Regulatory
Country
Accountability Effectiveness Corruption Law Quality

Lao PDR 4.43 38.46 15.87 18.27 25.48

Malaysia 34.48 76.44 58.17 64.90 74.52

Myanmar 23.65 13.46 32.21 16.83 19.23

Philippines 48.77 51.92 39.90 37.02 55.77

Singapore 41.38 100.00 97.60 96.63 99.52

Thailand 21.18 66.83 42.79 54.81 59.62

Vietnam 10.84 52.88 31.73 55.77 36.54

Similar to 2016, Singapore topped all indicators except Voice and Accountability where
Indonesia took over the Philippines’ reign. Singapore’s performance is closely followed by
Brunei as it achieved the 2nd highest percentile rankings across all indicators except Voice and
Accountability as well.

The Philippines was slightly edged out by Indonesia in Voice and Accountability but
remains in the upper 1/3 for this indicator. The country was also able to enter the upper half of
the rankings vs. our neighbors in terms of our Regulatory Quality score. For the rest of the
indicators however, the Philippines remains in the lower 1/3. The country must improve its
anti-corruption strategies, administer swift and fair justice and address government
effectiveness.